Sex with angels

[Yahu_]

If angels can't have sex to produce offspring why did the men of Sodom try to take the angels sent to Lot for sexual purposes? Some suggest that they were not really angels? They did eat a meal with Abraham before visiting Lot. It sounds like they are physical beings, not some spirit appearing.

The answer is simple. The four kings invaded and killed off all the rephaim in the land not long before when Lot was captured. The men of Sodom wanted those angels to produce more rephaim for them. They wanted to breed them with their wives and daughters to produce more giants and mighty men under their control. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. The Canaanite religion is full of references angelic offspring. Just translate all the place names in the book of Joshua in the land of Canaan. There are MANY references.

If you don't study name meanings, you miss all kind of knowledge provided by scripture. A good example is the 'field of Zophim' on Mt Pisgah. Pisgah means 'to pass within/through the cleft' and was a place of Asherah worship, ie 'mother earth'. Pisgah is a reference to having sex with 'mother earth'. Zophim is the Hebrew word for Watchers, a term used for fallen angels. A field is where the seed is planted in the earth. It is a pagan reference to Watchers having sex with the goddess Asherah, the mother of pagan gods. It was one of 3 high places of the Baalim that Balaak offered sacrifices. Each of the high places was dedicated to a different member of the Baalim (Canaanite pantheon). That is why Balak tried to get Balaam to curses Israel 3 different times by offering sacrifices to 3 different members of the Baalim hoping one would work.

Nu 22:
40 And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.
...
Nu 23:14 And he brought him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.
...
28 And Balak brought Balaam unto the top of Peor, that looketh toward Jeshimon.
29 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams.

Peor is also a sexual reference again meaning 'cleft'. Baalpeor (lord of the cleft) was worshiped here by sexual worship. Baalpeor is a fertility god, a grandson of Asherah by her daughter Ashtoreth.

The pagan gods had children but the source of some of them was the Watchers/angels via the goddess Asherah.

So who was Asherah?

The above scriptural references do have references with Watchers/Angels having sex to produce offspring and were worshiped via sex acts and pagan gods came from that sex. That is a major component of the pagan sexual practices and the Canaanites knew sex with angels produced new gods, giants and mighty men. This is why the men of Sodom wanted the angels for sexual purposes.

The entire Canaanite religion is based on sex with angels to produce additional gods.

This sheds a new light on the sons of God and the daughters of man of Gen 6 but of course this is the post-flood corruption.

 

[Winken]

If angels can't have sex to produce offspring why did the men of Sodom try to take the angels sent to Lot for sexual purposes? Some suggest that they were not really angels? They did eat a meal with Abraham before visiting Lot. It sounds like they are physical beings, not some spirit appearing.

The answer is simple. The four kings invaded and killed off all the rephaim in the land not long before when Lot was captured. The men of Sodom wanted those angels to produce more rephaim for them. They wanted to breed them with their wives and daughters to produce more giants and mighty men under their control. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. The Canaanite religion is full of references angelic offspring. Just translate all the place names in the book of Joshua in the land of Canaan. There are MANY references.

If you don't study name meanings, you miss all kind of knowledge provided by scripture. A good example is the 'field of Zophim' on Mt Pisgah. Pisgah means 'to pass within/through the cleft' and was a place of Asherah worship, ie 'mother earth'. Pisgah is a reference to having sex with 'mother earth'. Zophim is the Hebrew word for Watchers, a term used for fallen angels. A field is where the seed is planted in the earth. It is a pagan reference to Watchers having sex with the goddess Asherah, the mother of pagan gods. It was one of 3 high places of the Baalim that Balaak offered sacrifices. Each of the high places was dedicated to a different member of the Baalim (Canaanite pantheon). That is why Balak tried to get Balaam to curses Israel 3 different times by offering sacrifices to 3 different members of the Baalim hoping one would work.

Nu 22:
40 And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.
...
Nu 23:14 And he brought him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.
...
28 And Balak brought Balaam unto the top of Peor, that looketh toward Jeshimon.
29 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams.

Peor is also a sexual reference again meaning 'cleft'. Baalpeor (lord of the cleft) was worshiped here by sexual worship. Baalpeor is a fertility god, a grandson of Asherah by her daughter Ashtoreth.

The pagan gods had children but the source of some of them was the Watchers/angels via the goddess Asherah.

So who was Asherah?

The above scriptural references do have references with Watchers/Angels having sex to produce offspring and were worshiped via sex acts and pagan gods came from that sex. That is a major component of the pagan sexual practices and the Canaanites knew sex with angels produced new gods, giants and mighty men. This is why the men of Sodom wanted the angels for sexual purposes.

The entire Canaanite religion is based on sex with angels to produce additional gods.

This sheds a new light on the sons of God and the daughters of man of Gen 6 but of course this is the post-flood corruption.

The only "light" shed is that this analysis is bogus.

 

[CodyFaith]

Because that's something we want to see appear in the sidebar, "Sex with angels".

Shake my head.

 

[John Hyperspace]

How did the men of Sodom know they were angels? If the men of Sodom somehow had 'angel sense' why did they think they could just force their will upon angelic beings? Why would Lot think that the men would accept his daughters instead? Did Lot not know the man were angel-seekers? Did Lot not know the angels were angels? Why would angels produce giants? Do angels have different chromosomes? An 'A' chromosome? Why would God give angels an 'A' chromosome? Who were angels originally supposed to have intercourse with? Why do angels even have reproductive organs?

 

[Radrook]

How did the men of Sodom know they were angels? If the men of Sodom somehow had 'angel sense' why did they think they could just force their will upon angelic beings? Why would Lot think that the men would accept his daughters instead? Did Lot not know the man were angel-seekers? Did Lot not know the angels were angels? Why would angels produce giants? Do angels have different chromosomes? An 'A' chromosome? Why would God give angels an 'A' chromosome? Who were angels originally supposed to have intercourse with? Why do angels even have reproductive organs?

I agree with most of what you write.
About angels having sexual organs, not as spirits. However, as materialized beings they are described as mating with women before the flood. So one assumes that they used materialized male reproductive organs. It need not involve God directly giving them anything in reference to this at all. It could simply be a misuse of powers granted for holy purposes unrelated to such sinful behavior but which they rebelliously focused in order to make such sinful things possible. Remember, demons misuse their powers to possess both humans and animals. During the Ten plagues they used their powers to mimic partially whatever plagues God inflicted on Egypt. Satan used his powers to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth in an instant of time. So their misuse of powers is typical.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I agree with most of what you write.
About angels having sexual organs, not as spirits. However, as materialized beings they are described as mating with women before the flood. So one assumes that they used materialized male reproductive organs. It need not involve God directly giving them anything in reference to this at all. It could simply be a misuse of powers granted for holy purposes unrelated to such sinful behavior but which they rebelliously focused in order to make such sinful things passible.

I think it's somewhat more fair to the biblical text to agree that, one might interpret the Genesis account in such a manner; but not necessarily that such interpretation is the case. I'd ask the similar question again, why would angels produce special offspring? It's not good enough to say "Because they were angels" since we're stripping them of any "angelic" qualities when we materialize them as men. If they materialized as men it follows that they would have materialized the dna and chromosomes of men. Still no 'A' chromosome since it doesn't even exist to materialize; why would their offspring be any different than the offspring of normal men, in whose likeness they materialized? Or did they simply produce normal men who were then killed in the flood with everyone else?

 

[Radrook]

I think it's somewhat more fair to the biblical text to agree that, one might interpret the Genesis account in such a manner; but not necessarily that such interpretation is the case. I'd ask the similar question again, why would angels produce special offspring? It's not good enough to say "Because they were angels" since we're stripping them of any "angelic" qualities when we materialize them as men. If they materialized as men it follows that they would have materialized the dna and chromosomes of men. Still no 'A' chromosome since it doesn't even exist to materialize; why would their offspring be any different than the offspring of normal men, in whose likeness they materialized? Or did they simply produce normal men who were then killed in the flood with everyone else?

One thing we might keep in mind in striving to comprehend such a scenario is that such angels were rebels under the leadership of Satan who wanted to contaminate mankind genetically in order to prevent the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15, who would ultimately crush Satan's head or destroy him, from emerging.

So these beings were not here to help us. They were here to inflict damage. What better way to inflict chaos and social damage than to produce violently-inclined beastly abnormally-large domineering humanoids? The apocryphal writings describe them as cannibalistic. The Bible tells us that during their presence the thoughts of mankind were always evil. It eben includes the animals in the condemnation as if they also had been targeted for genetic abuse.

Also, please note that materialization per se doesn't automatically divest angels of their angelic personality qualities. For example, the angels who announced Jesus' birth to the shepherds, the Angel Gabriel who appeared to Daniel and to Mary, the angel who strengthened Jesus at the Garden and the angels who appeared at Jesus's tomb all retained their godly righteousness although appearing in the forms of men.

 

[John Hyperspace]

One thing we might keep in mind in striving to comprehend such a scenario is that such angels were rebels under the leadership of Satan who wanted to contaminate mankind genetically in order to prevent the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15, who would ultimately crush Satan's head or destroy him, from emerging.

So these beings were not here to help us. They were here to inflict damage. What better way to inflict chaos and social damage than to produce violently-inclined beastly abnormally-large domineering humanoids? The apocryphal writings describe them as cannibalistic. The Bible tells us that during their presence the thoughts of mankind were always evil. It eben includes the animals in the condemnation as if they also had been targeted for genetic abuse.

Also, please note that materialization per se doesn't automatically divest angels of their angelic personality qualities. For example, the angels who announced Jesus' birth to the shepherds, the Angel Gabriel who appeared to Daniel and to Mary, the angel who strengthened Jesus at the Garden and the angels who appeared at Jesus's tomb all retained their godly righteousness although appearing in the forms of men.

Yeah but none of that is really in the bible, right? I tend to keep things to what's in the bible. About the angels in the bible, we're pretty much going beyond "godly righteousness" or spiritual qualities, and now we're introducing physical sex. Even if I grant materialized angels, it doesn't follow that they would produce anything but normal male offspring since there's no such thing as "angelic chromosomes" to materialize. If they materialized male reproductive systems, that would mean, male reproductive systems. Which would be male dna and Y(?) chromosomes. It feels like this "angelic sex" hypothesis hasn't been thought all the way through. A lot of things I hear (even in other propositions not involving this topic) have the appearance of a good hypothesis, until you really start putting some thought into them, then things stop adding up and they all start falling apart. Like in the original post. Kind of looks okay on the surface, but when you poke at it it all collapses.

 

[Yahu_]

Yeah but none of that is really in the bible, right? I tend to keep things to what's in the bible. About the angels in the bible, we're pretty much going beyond "godly righteousness" or spiritual qualities, and now we're introducing physical sex. Even if I grant materialized angels, it doesn't follow that they would produce anything but normal male offspring since there's no such thing as "angelic chromosomes" to materialize. If they materialized male reproductive systems, that would mean, male reproductive systems. Which would be male dna and Y(?) chromosomes. It feels like this "angelic sex" hypothesis hasn't been thought all the way through. A lot of things I hear (even in other propositions not involving this topic) have the appearance of a good hypothesis, until you really start putting some thought into them, then things stop adding up and they all start falling apart. Like in the original post. Kind of looks okay on the surface, but when you poke at it it all collapses.

First off why do you think angels are not physical beings to begin with? John was caught up in the spirit to witness the events of Revelation. Who says that angels can't come to earth either physically or just in the spirit as in what we call astral projection. Jacob wrestled with an angel. Abraham fed the two angels that went to Lot a meal. The men of Sodom tried to grab them. Mana is called 'angels food'. That all points to angels being physical beings. On top of that in Hebrew people are called 'waters' all over scripture because we are mostly water. In Psalms, angelic beings are called 'waters above'. That also suggests a physical being. The heavenly kingdom isn't a realm of disembodied spirits. It is a physical place. There is no such thing as spiritual streets of gold or spiritual walls made of gemstones or spiritual mansions.

As to having different DNA, that is obvious since some have wings or different animal heads and such. Of course they would have a greater diversity of DNA. They also have their immortal glorified bodies like what we would have after the resurrection.

As to the OP falling apart. I stand behind it. The ancient paganism in conflict against Yah and Israel has been my area of study for over 20 years. I knew a high priestess of Ashtoreth that I met back in 1985. What I learned in that conflict with her is what got me studying the subject. She openly admitted her 'goddess' was the daughter of one of the four angels bound at the Euphrates that was locked up at the fall of Babel. She also openly admitted the truth behind all bible stories like the flood, Babel and such but scriptures didn't tell the whole stories of what was going on. She had to be willing to know the full truth an still choose to side with Yah's enemies to qualify as high priestess. I started my research to confirm or deny the things I learned then and ALL of it lines up with scripture.

 

[Yahu_]

One thing we might keep in mind in striving to comprehend such a scenario is that such angels were rebels under the leadership of Satan who wanted to contaminate mankind genetically in order to prevent the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15, who would ultimately crush Satan's head or destroy him, from emerging.

I think you are missing that it was the 'SEED OF the SERPENT' in conflict with the 'seed the woman', NOT the serpent itself.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And lets not forget the offspring of the cockatrice. The cockatrice followed after the 'serpent's root'.

Isa 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Note the 'fiery flying serpent' is the fruit/child/offspring of the Cockatrice and the Hebrew word used is Sereph, the singular form of Serephim, a type of winged being. This is in the chapter concerning Lucifer and Eze 28 references the pagan deity Molech, Melqart (king of the city) of Tire as a 'covering cherub' meaning having the covering set of wings, ie feathered arms. BTW feathered arms are a common representation of many of the pagan gods.

 

[Yahu_]

Yeah but none of that is really in the bible, right?

I would agree if you are referencing some mythical pre-adamic rebellion of 1/3 of the angels let by a mighty angel called Lucifer. That is a total myth that isn't close to being supported by scripture. It was a doctrine spread by Augustine I believe.

 

[SeventyOne]

Angels having sex with women and producing giants was a normal thought long ago. In the time of Josephus, he even wrote if this several times and even made sure to note that the bones of the giants were on display at that time, in case anyone had doubts. The 'Sons of Seth' theory is really something quite new. We don't have to know their DNA, only that what they do contribute to the process results in something not entirely human, which should be an anticipated result.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3
"For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 2
"There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men."

 

[Yahu_]

The 'Sons of Seth' theory is really something quite new.

Well if you consider the teachings of Augustine as an early church father as new. The concept that angelic beings were purely spiritual was common taught in the classical Greek philosophy education of that day so many educated people mocked the biblical account. Augustine forwarded the doctrine to say it wasn't really angels but sons of Seth. The Greek philosophy separated the gods and their agents purely to the spiritual realm without any physical form.

Augustine was sainted by the RCC and most of his doctrine became rooted into the Roman church as fact.

 

[SeventyOne]

Well if you consider the teachings of Augustine as an early church father as new. The concept that angelic beings were purely spiritual was common taught in the classical Greek philosophy education of that day so many educated people mocked the biblical account. Augustine forwarded the doctrine to say it wasn't really angels but sons of Seth. The Greek philosophy separated the gods and their agents purely to the spiritual realm without any physical form.

Augustine was sainted by the RCC and most of his doctrine became rooted into the Roman church as fact.

Yes, in respect to Josephus and also prior to Josephus, quite new.

 

[mmksparbud]

AAAck!! Not again!! The men of Sodom did not know they were angels----and neither did Lot for that matter until the angels blinded the men. Of course angels can appear as men, appearing as men and being literal men are 2 different things.

(Heb 13:2 WEBA) Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for in doing so, some have entertained angels without knowing it.

That is done for our benefit. When they appear as they truly are, they cause men to fall down in awe and worship them which they will not allow. Angels have been in the presence of God, if they do not veil themselves somehow, we could not tolerate them. When Moses spoke to God on the Mount, he had to veil his face from the Israelites because his face shined so brightly they were afraid.
Exo_34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Exo_34:30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
Exo_34:35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

There is absolutely no reason for millions of male angels to have sexual organs when there were no females to mate with and God is not into homosexuality, there is nothing in the bible that states this, it is a matter of one word being misinterpreted and one phrase and then not acknowledging the fact the genetics plays a part in the giants which were simply tall people descendent from Adam and Eve which nobody knows how tall they were----unless you can prove through DNA that there is something other than human DNA in our blood, they don't exist. There are angels that have 2 wings and some that have 6, there is no record of anyone being born with wings.
There have been numerous threads about this, you can research those if you like. There has to be a whole lot of "maybe" this or that, in order to bring this about, none of which is stated in the bible, and it ends up making no sense whatsoever.
I can put up pages and pages of the words and phrases being interpreted according to the Hebrew language and it does not mean angels having sex with humans. Proponents of this theory do not like those and reject them, but can not refute them.

 

[SeventyOne]

AAAck!! Not again!! The men of Sodom did not know they were angels----and neither did Lot for that matter until the angels blinded the men. Of course angels can appear as men, appearing as men and being literal men are 2 different things.

(Heb 13:2 WEBA) Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for in doing so, some have entertained angels without knowing it.

That is done for our benefit. When they appear as they truly are, they cause men to fall down in awe and worship them which they will not allow. Angels have been in the presence of God, if they do not veil themselves somehow, we could not tolerate them. When Moses spoke to God on the Mount, he had to veil his face from the Israelites because his face shined so brightly they were afraid.
Exo_34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Exo_34:30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
Exo_34:35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

There is absolutely no reason for millions of male angels to have sexual organs when there were no females to mate with and God is not into homosexuality, there is nothing in the bible that states this, it is a matter of one word being misinterpreted and one phrase and then not acknowledging the fact the genetics plays a part in the giants which were simply tall people descendent from Adam and Eve which nobody knows how tall they were----unless you can prove through DNA that there is something other than human DNA in our blood, they don't exist. There are angels that have 2 wings and some that have 6, there is no record of anyone being born with wings.
There have been numerous threads about this, you can research those if you like. There has to be a whole lot of "maybe" this or that, in order to bring this about, none of which is stated in the bible, and it ends up making no sense whatsoever.

And yet there appears to be two female angels, complete with wings, in Zechariah. Just to say there is no reason for them to have a certain set of organs is just an assumption on your part. There's just as much cause to declare they have no organs, or that swap out and the male looking angels have female organs. The evidence that the existence of male organs enjoys is the scripture declares they took wives (female), knew them (sex), and had children (reproduction). I only know of one set of organs that can be used to interact with women and produce children, and that would be the male set.

I can put up pages and pages of the words and phrases being interpreted according to the Hebrew language and it does not mean angels having sex with humans. Proponents of this theory do not like those and reject them, but can not refute them.

Considering that argument has been refuted for centuries, I find this claim to be without merit.

 

[mmksparbud]

Zec 5:5 Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth.
Zec 5:6 And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth.
Zec 5:7 And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.
Zec 5:8 And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.
Zec 5:9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.
Zec 5:10 Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah?
Zec 5:11 And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

This is a vision---Zachariah had many visions, mountains of brass, flying rolls, and a vision of a young man. Zachariah makes a distinction between humans and angels. When speaking of the young man he calls him a young man, when he speaks of angels, he calls them angels---this vision is of 3 women, 2 of them with wings, and he never calls them angels. It's a vision.

Zec 2:1 I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
Zec 2:2 Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.
Zec 2:3 And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him,
Zec 2:4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:

 

[mmksparbud]

Considering that argument has been refuted for centuries, I find this claim to be without merit.[/QUOTE]


No, it has not. It has stood for centuries. People, for some reason, want o make this into what it is not.

 

[John Hyperspace]

First off why do you think angels are not physical beings to begin with?

I didn't say angels weren't physical beings. The word "malakim" simply means "messengers" and usually clearly indicates physical beings - men performing the role of messenger.

John was caught up in the spirit to witness the events of Revelation.

John was a man. Even the "angel" that speaks to John says "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets" Revelation 22:9.

Who says that angels can't come to earth either physically or just in the spirit as in what we call astral projection.

We can certainly say a lot of things. It's one thing for men to say something, it's quite another for the scipture to say something.

Jacob wrestled with an angel.

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

Abraham fed the two angels that went to Lot a meal.

Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

As to having different DNA, that is obvious since some have wings or different animal heads and such.

The only time you see beings with multiple heads is in visions. Visions are not to be taken literally; they are symbolic, and what "angels" are you citing in visions? Even if we were to take such visions literally (which would be senseless), nothing is mentioned about "dna" is such visions, and nothing supporting "multi-headed" physical beings would have their own dna for breeding purposes; let alone reproductive organs. Do you expect me to believe that there are male and female multi-headed physical beings in a physical heaven that have sexual intercourse and bear children by some form of genetic heredity?

The ancient paganism in conflict against Yah and Israel has been my area of study for over 20 years.

Well if we're boasting now, I've studied for over 30 years. Since I've been at it longer, does that mean the debate is over now? If no, why not? Is it because time of study doesn't really indicate anything, and shouldn't be brought up to begin with since it's irrelevant boasting?

I knew a high priestess of Ashtoreth that I met back in 1985. What I learned in that conflict with her is what got me studying the subject. She openly admitted her 'goddess' was the daughter of one of the four angels bound at the Euphrates that was locked up at the fall of Babel. She also openly admitted the truth behind all bible stories like the flood, Babel and such but scriptures didn't tell the whole stories of what was going on. She had to be willing to know the full truth an still choose to side with Yah's enemies to qualify as high priestess. I started my research to confirm or deny the things I learned then and ALL of it lines up with scripture.

A girl saying things is not scriptural support of a proposition; it's simply indicative of willingness to believe something to be true by the words of some random girl. Why would you even believe her words were true to begin with; being without support? Why believe something without support? Why not then believe everything you hear from everyone?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I would agree if you are referencing some mythical pre-adamic rebellion of 1/3 of the angels let by a mighty angel called Lucifer. That is a total myth that isn't close to being supported by scripture. It was a doctrine spread by Augustine I believe.

I never said anything about a "mighty angel called Lucifer" and a "pre-Adamic rebellion" and agree that proposition has as much scriptural support as yours. Which is scant and highly specious at best, non-existent at worst.